The False Dichotomy

2010.11.29   prev     next

William Dembski, in an Uncommon Descent article, “Is PZ Myers the Future of Secular Humanism?”:

If the only two conceivable options are Darwinism or religion, then the Darwinists get to bash their opponents on the basis of the worst, anti-scientific whimsy that religion has to offer, and present Darwinism as the correct answer by simple process of elimination. It doesn’t matter what problems evolution has with the evidence — as long as those problems pale in comparison with the staggering evidentiary problems of various Bible stories, then Darwin wins by default.

If the only two conceivable options are religion or Darwinism, then the religious get to bash their opponents on the basis of the claim that humanity has no purpose but survival and reproduction; that humans are technically no better than roaches (if we’re no more likely to survive). And, since evolution is perfectly OK with any particular species going extinct, even survival as a purpose doesn’t count for much. Since most people don’t like the idea that their lives have no purpose, the religious can bash Darwinism on this basis, and then present religion as the correct answer by a simple process of elimination. It doesn’t matter what problems religion has with the evidence — as long as those problems pale in comparison with the undesirable idea that humanity is an unintended accident of an uncaring mechanical process, then religion wins by default.

What this means is that neither side of the evolution debate has any desire to breach the dichotomy. The dichotomy is something they both like and are happy to assume without any attempt at justification. Each side knows the other will do that too; there is no fear that the false dichotomy will be attacked by their chief opponents.

What if human religions are a bunch of made-up stories — but humanity is not an unintended accident? What if random mutation and natural selection can only preserve adaptations, not create them — but each human does live at the mercy of an uncaring, mechanical world; each human individual is expendable? What if humanity is highly unlikely to go extinct simply because we’ve been intentionally given the abilities needed to survive and expand throughout our universe?

These possibilities don’t sit well with either Darwinists or the religious, both of whom are too in love with their own worldview to let go of it. These possibilities sit well with only one, small group of people: those who want all the evidentiary problems simply to disappear. Those who want a worldview that might actually be true.